Popcorn Johnny:Apos: An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.

The only thing that could go farther would be a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not condoning what the Third Reich did by any stretch of the imagination. It just seems that the outrage over this depiction(which, by the way, doesn't explicitly show any association to Hitler other than its title) seems a tad disproportionate to the alleged blasphemy. *shrugs*

Apos:Popcorn Johnny: Apos: An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.

The only thing that could go farther would be a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not condoning what the Third Reich did by any stretch of the imagination. It just seems that the outrage over this depiction(which, by the way, doesn't explicitly show any association to Hitler other than its title) seemsis a tad disproportionate to the alleged blasphemy. *shrugs*

The Hitler representation is visible from a hole in a wooden gate across town on Prozna Street. Viewers only see the back of the small figure praying in a courtyard. Because of its small size, it appears to be a harmless schoolboy.

"Every criminal was once a tender, innocent and defenceless child," the centre said in a commentary on the work.

Poland's chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich, said he was consulted on the installation's placement ahead of time and did not oppose it because he saw value in the artist's attempt to try to raise moral questions by provoking viewers.

He said he was reassured by curators who told him there was no intention of rehabilitating Hitler but rather of showing that evil can present itself in the guise of a "sweet praying child."

I think that actually makes sense, but without any context it does come off as trolling.

I think the beef with this is that it's senselessly provocative. Sure, art is supposed to do that, but did you really have to troll the sh*t out of everyone in the process? There are plenty of other ways to irritate people. But this one is pretty damn sacred. It seems to be trolling for trolling's (not art's) sake.

dickfreckle:I think the beef with this is that it's senselessly provocative.

It's not though. It brings to mind many valid points / questions about the value of prayer, size, aspect, conflict, religion, and suffering just to name a few. Just because it's OMGHITLER, even in a concentration camp, doesn't make it senselessly anything.

Here's how you can tell if an art piece is "senselessly provocative"--would it be offensive if the title were removed? If yes, then it's offensive on its face and shouldn't be displayed, or at least not in the location where it is being shown. If no, then it is the NAME of the work that is offensive, and the work should be left as--in this case--its intent is to create discussion.

In this case, if the statue wasn't called "Hitler Praying", nobody would know at first glance it was Hitler. It could be a child, or just a person reflecting on the horrors that went on in Warsaw. That it is specified as Hitler means it's intended to make people think. Why is Hitler praying? Why is he looking out that barred gate? Is he in Hell now, praying for forgiveness? Wishing he'd done things differently?

Now, if it had been Hitler standing in triumph, say, or obviously Hitler in some kind of victory pose, then it would be inappropriate; or if it was near the train platforms where Jews were shipped to their deaths, that would be more overtly offensive. But I don't think this location or pose is overtly provocative as it is.

Gyrfalcon:Here's how you can tell if an art piece is "senselessly provocative"--would it be offensive if the title were removed? If yes, then it's offensive on its face and shouldn't be displayed, or at least not in the location where it is being shown. If no, then it is the NAME of the work that is offensive, and the work should be left as--in this case--its intent is to create discussion.

In this case, if the statue wasn't called "Hitler Praying", nobody would know at first glance it was Hitler. It could be a child, or just a person reflecting on the horrors that went on in Warsaw. That it is specified as Hitler means it's intended to make people think. Why is Hitler praying? Why is he looking out that barred gate? Is he in Hell now, praying for forgiveness? Wishing he'd done things differently?

Now, if it had been Hitler standing in triumph, say, or obviously Hitler in some kind of victory pose, then it would be inappropriate; or if it was near the train platforms where Jews were shipped to their deaths, that would be more overtly offensive. But I don't think this location or pose is overtly provocative as it is.

Gyrfalcon:Here's how you can tell if an art piece is "senselessly provocative"--would it be offensive if the title were removed? If yes, then it's offensive on its face and shouldn't be displayed, or at least not in the location where it is being shown. If no, then it is the NAME of the work that is offensive, and the work should be left as--in this case--its intent is to create discussion.

In this case, if the statue wasn't called "Hitler Praying", nobody would know at first glance it was Hitler. It could be a child, or just a person reflecting on the horrors that went on in Warsaw. That it is specified as Hitler means it's intended to make people think. Why is Hitler praying? Why is he looking out that barred gate? Is he in Hell now, praying for forgiveness? Wishing he'd done things differently?

Now, if it had been Hitler standing in triumph, say, or obviously Hitler in some kind of victory pose, then it would be inappropriate; or if it was near the train platforms where Jews were shipped to their deaths, that would be more overtly offensive. But I don't think this location or pose is overtly provocative as it is.

This is a fair point, and one I will consider. For the near future though, I find it needlessly inflammatory.

I saw it when it was on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago a few years ago. If I can remember correctly, it was the only piece in the room far away from the door that had one of the museum staff standing by to keep an eye on the piece and "HIM" facing away from the door... so you had to walk in to the room and circle around it to see that it was hitler. From the picture in the article, it would appear that the piece is facing an open grate and people seeing it from the other side of the grate aren't getting the piece in the proper context.

I thought it was an interesting piece because it appeared to be an innocent young child praying, then you rotate enough around the piece to see it'shiatler and are instantly repulsed

I think that people are most offended by the depiction of Hitler as a pious man...and that's a GOOD thing. He did what he did in the name of God, just like many evil men and women have done before and since. History has created this evil caracature of Hitler, because if we stop and think of him as just a normal man, the evil things that he did are even more reprehensible. It's a lesson that humanity doesn't seem to learn...we disassociate the evil acts done in the name of religion with the religion, because obviously, it was the PERSON, not the religion that was wrong. And then we watch and wonder why these crimes against humanity happen over and over and over again.

bborchar:I think that people are most offended by the depiction of Hitler as a pious man...and that's a GOOD thing. He did what he did in the name of God, just like many evil men and women have done before and since. History has created this evil caracature of Hitler, because if we stop and think of him as just a normal man, the evil things that he did are even more reprehensible. It's a lesson that humanity doesn't seem to learn...we disassociate the evil acts done in the name of religion with the religion, because obviously, it was the PERSON, not the religion that was wrong. And then we watch and wonder why these crimes against humanity happen over and over and over again.

I've said this so many times (it's the person using something to hide behind, any convenient organization and such will do, and if religion wouldn't be good enough, they'd be using political groups, scientific group, the local book club, etc.), but the intelligence to understand this is seriously lacking on Fark... If you don't get several flames over it, I'll be surprised, they see something something religion and they wharrrblegarble.

bborchar:I think that people are most offended by the depiction of Hitler as a pious man...and that's a GOOD thing. He did what he did in the name of God, just like many evil men and women have done before and since. History has created this evil caracature of Hitler, because if we stop and think of him as just a normal man, the evil things that he did are even more reprehensible. It's a lesson that humanity doesn't seem to learn...we disassociate the evil acts done in the name of religion with the religion, because obviously, it was the PERSON, not the religion that was wrong. And then we watch and wonder why these crimes against humanity happen over and over and over again.

Religion is like a firearm or a wheel, it can be used for good or for ill. Hitler was a master statesmen and speaker, and used religion as one of his many tools. If you gather up all the evidence, it points to Hitler believing in God but hating religion in general and using it for his own ends. The guy was evil. I know people really loathe to use that word, but its true.

imfallen_angel:bborchar: I think that people are most offended by the depiction of Hitler as a pious man...and that's a GOOD thing. He did what he did in the name of God, just like many evil men and women have done before and since. History has created this evil caracature of Hitler, because if we stop and think of him as just a normal man, the evil things that he did are even more reprehensible. It's a lesson that humanity doesn't seem to learn...we disassociate the evil acts done in the name of religion with the religion, because obviously, it was the PERSON, not the religion that was wrong. And then we watch and wonder why these crimes against humanity happen over and over and over again.

I've said this so many times (it's the person using something to hide behind, any convenient organization and such will do, and if religion wouldn't be good enough, they'd be using political groups, scientific group, the local book club, etc.), but the intelligence to understand this is seriously lacking on Fark... If you don't get several flames over it, I'll be surprised, they see something something religion and they wharrrblegarble.

Your dislike and wanting to blame religion for all of societies ills doesn't change what Hitler felt or did. The man used religion until a point that it benefited him and as soon as he didnt need it anymore, he was hell-bent on abolishing it all. The guy thought he was sent by God to destroy and conquer the world. He was an evil, manipulative being. To sit there and cry "religion is the evilz" to justify what Hitler did is just confirmation bias.

I think my post was misunderstood. I never meant it as "religion is bad!!!" But Hitler's christianity is never discussed when we talk about the holicaust- would we do the same if he had had done these atrocities as a Muslim? It's not the religion that's the problem...it's our society's reluctance to see a

It's humanity's reluctance to put the people using it as a tool for evil in their place until it's too late. I'm saying that we either take an all or nothing approach, instead of seeing the problems with both the person and beliefs.